The Ontological Tyranny

The question is not: “are scientific laws objectively consistent with reality?” but: “with which reality are scientific laws consistent?”
As pointed out by Moreno, there are realities which rely on and support very different laws, such as the consciousness of plants. That such consciousness is not an absurd fiction but rather a necessity becomes clear when one understands all acts of life as acts of valuing, which axiom to a science independent from what we call “natural science”.

Any science can point us in a direction that is valid given a certain assumption of how things can be known (the type of things we want to know are “hard facts”), but is not thereby the only valid direction in which working, “true” science may be gathered. From this follows that the claim to “the real truth” held by scientists ultimately holds no more validity than the psychotic holding to the truth of his hallucination, using it as a basis for further identification of relations between experiences.

Scientific truth is thoroughly subjective, culturally determined, and highlight only certain aspects of reality, which it then labels as “the true world”. A logical non-sequitur, but no matter, it results in power, even if this power turns out to be of a deeply problematic nature.

It is in the belief that technologically-verified science fully accounts for what there is to know about the world, that the helplessly lethargic retardation of our world is rooted. People think that the scientific commitment to not value is itself value-neutral. But this is not the case - it is the imposition of a specific value-system on life, and the subsequent approach of life as if it could not exist without being understood in terms of that system. “Naturally there are no true values, our values tell us this”.

Jakob: You speak well on the topic; I think you’ve summarized the issues lurking beneath the surface of this thread.

Hence, the importance of Nelson.

Hence, the importance of Foucault.

Hence, the importance of negating the tyranny of ontology in science; or at least striving toward overcoming it.

without-music: Can you explain more about what exactly is tyrranical here, and why? Is it tyrranical to be a realist? Is it tyrranical merely to be a scientist? It seems to me that word is being bandied about without much specificity.

That science, insofar as it is good science, must follow such a methodology is what I am referring to as tyrannical.

Why “ontological” tyrrany, then? Why not “methodological” tyrrany? Surely a scientist can believe in an objective reality and that certain methods are better suited than others to discovering/describing that reality. And I think such a scientist, while likely raising his eyebrows at more unconventional methodologies, would be unlikely to claim that scientific results produced with unconventional methods are, therefore, invalid. In fact, I don’t think he could make such a claim and continue to be as respected in the scientific community.

Well, first: the term is not mine, it’s Elizabeth Potter’s. Second: the methodology is derived from, and grounds itself in, the ontology.

But rejecting a particular ontological view from participation in the scientific enterprise is itself tyrranical, no? Science depends on verifiable results. Fundamentalist Christians can be (and are!) scientists. Their values are presumably part and parcel of how they do science, but the science they produce remains independent of their (idiosyncratic) values - it is common property, which transcends particular belief systems. What they produce does not remain dependent on how they got there.

I completely disagree. Refer to my tabbed post, here, for what is more or less my understanding of the scientific practice.

well we are down to base rock…i agree with anon and disagree with music…i now know what the music position is…there is objective truth(99.9%) that can be handled neutrally…

It’s a desirable ideal.
A karate master practices his entire life fully aware that perfection of form is impossible.
We work to gain knowledge more even though we can never know everything.

There are certain aspects of science on which we have agreement. The topics listed in an elementary physics book are not changing. Currently active fields of research are changing. The results may overturn theories which are decades or centuries old but they won’t overturn everything. There is a solid foundation of knowledge on which we are building.

Philosophically speaking we do need to be correct. If we are only interested in making calculations and predictions, then any theory which produces good results is useful. That is an engineering approach - the application of science to solve a problem. Science, itself, is seeking the really real.

The bias cannot be eliminated but it can be reduced. Reducing the bias produces better results - better science.
Encouraging a value-laden bias will distort the results in the direction of those values. If you hold those values, then you may consider it beneficial. In reality, it is not beneficial. Your agricultural studies example showed an initially male bias study being ‘overturned’ by a female bias study. I would say that if both studies attempted to take a neutral position, the results would have been closer to the truth.

Considering how sympathetic I am to your views here, I’m surprised you “completely disagree”.

In attacking “objectivity”, be careful not to throw out intersubjectivity with it. True or not, theories that work are theories that work. They work whether or not I want them to, and whether or not they conflict with my religious beliefs. Feminist values, alternative methodologies… these are not problems (and might be quite beneficial) assuming they produce results that are relevant to the scientific community.

I was as careful to include the word “idiosyncratic” as Nelson was to use the word “necessarily” (both words bolded in this post).

Scientists study the “real”. I’m not sure what the “really real” even is, other than a metaphysical belief of some kind. But a scientist who believes in the “really real” is just as capable of studying the “real” as an instrumentalist is. The validity of a scientific theory does not rest on methodology or belief. Science is a discipline. As such, there are scientific values, scientific rules. Those rules are what make science science, and not something else.

Determining whether plants are conscious sounds interesting. Why can’t science investigate it?

I can think of some reasons for ‘the helplessly lethargic retardation of our world’ but I don’t think that applying a neutral scientific approach is one of them.

I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning for such a conclusion.

anon: I think my main problem lies with your statement that “what [scientists] produce does not remain dependent on how they got there.” I think knowledge is always contextual, for reasons enumerated throughout the thread.

The scientific discourse works under its own rules of legitimation. These rules are grounded in the tyranny of ontology, and so science done outside of such an ontology, subject to the rules of the discourse, isn’t permitted entry, isn’t qualified as science. These rules can change, and they must change as far as I’m concerned. Insofar as these rules are derived from the tyranny of ontology, the validity of a scientific theory does rest on methodology, and insofar as such an ontology is a belief, validity does rest on belief.

I think the issue is that philosophers of science aren’t aware that objectivity is impossible. This is the meaning of the tyranny. We can still admit values into science while striving for neutrality, for those values are going to worm their way in regardless. My intention is not for science to embrace as much value-ladenness as it can manage, my intention is that science accepts its inevitable bias, and embraces that bias that is ineradicable.

I disagree. That we have agreement does not mean that we have reached certainty. We have previously agreed on knowledge that has since undergone serious revision and reconsideration. Further, I believe that the topics listed in an elementary physics book are changing, and will continue to change in the foreseeable future.

They did attempt neutrality: the traditionalists believed they were being objective. The feminists, contrarily, sought neutrality while embracing the values that they couldn’t leave at the door.

This is where you lose me on the subtle distinctions.
How do you ‘embrace that bias that is ineradicable’? What does it mean in the context of gathering data and analyzing the data? How does ‘the embrace’ change the theory?

How did the feminists seek neutrality? Presumably they went into the study trying to show the influence of women. Didn’t they pick data that substantiated this theory? Did they reject data just as the male traditionalists had done? How do we know which data they rejected?
How neutral was the study?
Do you admit that neutrality is desirable? Nelson doesn’t think so.

I think knowledge is always contextual as well. But the context of scientific knowledge is bigger than you might be suggesting it is. Is scientific knowledge limited to anglo-saxon culture, for example? No, it applies more universally than that. And we can’t just choose, even collectively, what kind of knowledge scientific research will provide. You can’t just say, “The scientific discourse works under its own rules of legitimation” and leave it at that. Scientific knowledge is as much about discovery as it is about construction.

Sure. But which rules are essential to scientific inquiry? It’s not a rule that you must have (or not) a particular religious outlook. It’s not a rule that you can’t have personal prejudices.

Some scientific rules are essential. When you break them, you aren’t doing science any more. Other scientific rules come and go. I think you have to be very specific - if you have an issue with a certain “rule” (whether canonical or unspoken assumption), then that “rule” should be discussed on its own. The fact is, however, not everything is science.

Which rules should change? All of them? Are you suggesting that science doesn’t investigate (even if in a limited way) our common reality?

actually this so-called “ontological tyranny” and “really real” are cofusing a discussion about reality and objective truth…music cant you write more clearly about reality…this is almost like playing word games…

That’s a really exacting question; I’ll be sure to look over my notes before giving you a response.

The feminists went into the study trying to develop a theory that did a better job in accounting for observed phenomena. If we can agree that their resultant conclusion was the better of the two, then we needn’t occupy ourselves with the last three of your questions.

I think neutrality is unattainable. Nelson goes slightly further than I, though I believe we’re “on the same page”, so to speak.

Duly noted.

I agree in that we can’t just “choose”; the issue is far subtler: the scientific discourse operates within certain boundaries, and under certain restrictions. These restrictions work to legitimate that kind of knowledge scientific research produces, while negating or “refusing entry” to the rest. These restrictions are intrinsic to the discourse: they consist of the “rules” of science, as you’ve said: who can produce knowledge, under what conditions, through what process, after how much verification, in what context, for what purpose, etc.

I think, generally speaking, rules rooted in the ontological tyranny are currently considered essential to proper inquiry. These can be changed, and I think they must be changed, as I’ve said. In short: the discourse needs to be allowed to grow and change.

I know I’m being vague, but that’s not what I’m suggesting: this is a topic that currently interests me, one that I’m currently working through an understanding and conceptualization of. My stance isn’t concrete. However, I am suggesting that science understands itself, and so allows itself to be reproduced, in a certain way: this understanding seems to me to be rooted in the tyranny of ontology. It is this understanding of itself that provides a framework for the scientific discourse as well as, in turn, the restrictions that constitute such a discourse. To overcome this understanding is to alter the discourse and so change the rules of legitimation: it is to change the way science is allowed to be done, the way knowledge is allowed to be produced.

Without-Music, have you read Paul Feyerabend? Nancy Cartwright? Seems like they would interest you.

I have not. Can you suggest a particular work to begin with? I appreciate the recommendation, though.

I haven’t read Cartwright at all - I’ve only had some online contact with her ideas (not personally - just, you know, Wikipedia etc.) I’ve read some Feyerabend, but not much. I had a book called Farewell to Reason for a while, and read an essay or two from it. I think he’s most famous for Against Method though.

Wiki on Feyerabend’s philosophy of science

Wiki on Nancy Cartwright

I’m sure I’ve read some stuff of Cartwright’s (I think from How The Laws of Physics Lie) but I don’t know where. If you try, you might dig something up online.

EDIT: Here’s an online version of How The Laws of Physics Lie